If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ You do have to register
before you can post and there is a 5 post minimum requirement before you can access the areas marked Private. Click the register link to proceed.

Moving away from the optimal cadence, there is greater O2 consumption, and lower power output.

Actually, you could lower O2 consumption at cadences lower than those that minimize muscle activation for each corresponding power level. That's why optimizing cadence at a point where O2 consumption (or HR) is minimized can be misleading. That would have us pedaling slower than optimal. Our bodies don't tend to gravitate towards minimizing O2 consumption at sustainable intensities. Our bodies tend to prefer pedaling in a way that allows us to minimize fatigue.

And this is pretty much independent of fitness level. The slow preferred cadences of the casual recreational rider on the bike path at the beach are similar to those of the fit, "skilled pedaling" RAAM rider crossing the country with a slow, steady 170 watt power output. Put the RAAM rider in his local crit race or have an angry dog chase the recreational rider and both will naturally pedal faster with their higher power demands.

The lesson is that increasing power and increasing cadence should go hand-in-hand. Indoors, I think encouraging riders to "find a rhythm" first - then optimize resistance helps keep them from choosing unrealistic cadences.

The only high cadence training that makes any sense at all is at power levels approaching your all out max (true sprint training). Neuomusculer training is not about pedaling fast, it's about pedaling fast against maximal load (for that specific cadence or muscle shortening velocity).
Use running as an analogy. Neuromuscular training is sprinting - not running in place moving your feet as fast as possible. Spinning the pedals as fast as possible against little or no resistance is the cycling equivalent of running in place with super quick steps.

Once you discard the false premise that pedaling smoothly at fast cadence is about skill and not the result of appropriately chosen cadence-gear-power combinations you can look at things from their proper biomechanical and physiological perspective. Saying the reason you can't pedal fast against light resistance is because you lack "skill" is like saying the reason you will eventually fall on your face when you take off sprinting down a steep hill is because you lack "skill".

I have to disagree with these two statements. Explosive power (neuromusculer power) is only one aspect of neuromusculer training, it is not the entire story. The term neuromusculer encompasses much more than maximal efforts. It also includes the ability to contract a muscle quicker and the re-education of a muscle (or muscle group) in therapy. In its most basic sense, it's the communication between the nervous system and the muscles. Ask any kid playing a video game, as she progresses from level 1 to the top level - it is entirely possible to get faster in your responses. This ability is due to neuromusculer adaptations. There isn't any "power" involved in pressing the video game button - in fact in this case, power would interfere with the quick reaction times.

Most top cycling coaches include leg speed drills for their athletes - and these leg speed drills are most often referred to as neuromusculer training. As an example, Jeb Stewart, M.S., C.S.C.S. is a USA Cycling Elite and USA Triathlon Level 1 coach and is certified with ACSM, NSCA and NASM. He has a Master's Degree in Exercise Science. He is head coach of Endurofit. (Check out his bio on his website - pretty impressive coach/athlete. Someone I'd listen to). This article on Active.com by Jeb Stewart is Build and Maintain Leg Speed in the Off Season. Pay attention to his use of the term neuromusculer training and "motor programming". This paragraph stood out:

Some athletes, on the other hand, who have naturally high cadinces due to a highly trained or naturally gifted neuromusculer system, do not have as much trouble getting that leg speed back. Regardless, it pays to include some leg-speed work in your training to limit the damage and improve your mechanics and overall neuromusculer fitness.

Regarding the limited interpretation of the word neuromusculer, I recommend checking out a few of these studies about neuromusculer adaptations in cyclists:This study focused on the Metabolic and Neuromusculer Adaptations in Endurance Training in Professional Cyclists. (Translation: endurance = submaximal.)This study is on Neuromusculer, metabolic and kinetic adaptations for skilled pedaling performance in cyclists.
Or this one, Neuromusculer adaptations to concurrant strength and endurance training

This book is not on cycling, but rather on Exercise Physiology - this is the definition of neuromusculer training. Note that it is not limited to explosive power or maximal effort.
The design and implementation of a Neuromusculer Training Program Following ACL Ligament Reconstruction (got this one from my brother who is a PA that does ACL reconstruction and refers his patients for neuromusculer re-education). I'm posting this because of this sentence: The objective of the neuromusculer training was to improve the ability to generate a fast and optimal muscle firing pattern, to increase dynamic joint stability and to relearn movement patterns and skills necessary during activities of daily living and sports activities.

Hope these help anyone who is tempted to think neuromusculer training is only explosive power and not the ability to pedal faster (and more efficiently), or that cadence work or pedaling drills don't have a potential positive impact on your pedaling skills.

I think Todd is talking about the inertia of the flywheel in a fixed bike system.

When the cinetic energy of the flywheel is greater than the one that is delivering with legs, the difference is downloaded on the legs of those who ride.
Looking the scene from outside, the rider is bouncing on the saddle.
In this scenario, the "skill" does not change what it is happening. It may be that a more powerful rider can provide more power and the breakpoint will be shifted at higher rpm.

Another thing, as Jannifer has said, is to learn an activation schema (the kid playing a video game is the best example), when the new synapses are activated, other motor units are recruited.
If the pattern is recalled many times, the new schema acquired and "ready to use", this process involve "the skill".

The pedalling process involve both aspects, a lesser activation time, can be helpful for the entire system.

1) Causal vs associative relationships. I think it's important when looking at a reference to be able do conclude in your mind how the study supports what you think it does. You should be able to show cause and effect and come up with a proposed theory or mechanism that could explain the causal relationship.
a) Lucia et al - I'm not sure what this says about skilled pedaling at high cadence, but they do concude that over time "possibly (2) an enhanced recruitment of motor units in active muscles, as suggested by rms-EMG data." I'm not sure where to go with that.
b) Taikishi et al - They were looking at cadence preferences of cyclists vs non cyclists. That's a pretty good one. They make an argument for circular pedaling. They conclude 'skill' (an associative relationship), but don't ask whether there are other cycling specific adaptations (related to say changes in the nature of cycling specific muscle fibers - the more commonly held belief with physiologists) that cause them to choose to pedal the way they do and often consume less O2. I'd guess if they did the exact same experiment with running (comparing say experienced runners with cyclists of similar physical characteristics) they'd see similar results. Would it be because the runners are more skilled or is there some other adaptation that comes with regular running that makes you a better runner? I don't know.
c) McCarthy et al - That uses the word neuromuscular, but it's about concurrent strength and endurance training so I'm not sure how it applies.
d) As for the text - they're just talking about how maximal strength gains when beginning weight training are due to neural factors, not hypertrophy. Not sure how that applies to anything we're talking about other than confirming that neuromuscular is in fact a word.
e) Risberg et al - That kind of leads into my second point as it just talks about movement patterns.

2) I always look at this stuff through the prism of the basics of training - specificity and overload. Simply training a movement pattern is worthless if it does not occur under real world conditions. Let's just say I could practice and practice spinning away at 140 rpm against light resistance to get real good at it. That's not a condition I would ever use in the real world of cycling (or indoor cycling). For the effort to be specific (to when I would pedal at 140 rpm), it has to be close to or on the 140 rpm point on the force-velocity curve, not well below it. To use your example, if you're a kid who's practiced enough to become a whiz with a tiny little joystick to prepare for flying a real helecopter with a real joystick, he's probably wasted his time. Neural adaptations, to be useful, have to come at real world speeds with real world forces (fiber recruitment).

some great advice and lines to use here. now we just need to get the majority of instructors to stay current with their education and training so that they themselves model appropriate cadence with no bounce so that those that do will stand as out of the norm and we can gradually get the IC to see that these high crazy classes and legs are not what real cycling is about as those are the classes that the crowds seem to flock to overwhelmingly. too bad but hopeful we are all doing our little part.